If Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 Democratic nomination for president and has the tactical good sense to pick Governor Bill Richardson (NM) or Senator Barack Obama (IL) for her running mate (the former is a better choice), the next POTUS will be a Democrat. Most Democrats and not a few Republicans will be unable to resist the historic implications of having the first woman and the first minority ever heading the executive branch of the US government.
So when all you conservative Republicans finish fighting with each other, you might want to take time out to consider how you will handle such a state of affairs.
Jesse Macbeth, the man who claimed to be a United States Army Ranger and a recipient of a Purple Heart but who actually was an Army boot-camp wash-out, will face charges for using his fantasies to boost an anti-war rhetoric.
Jesse Adam Macbeth, 23, formerly of Phoenix, garnered much attention on blogs and in some alternative media after he began claiming in 2005 to have been awarded a Purple Heart for his service, which he said included slaughtering innocents in a Fallujah mosque. His story was contradicted by his true discharge form, showing that he was kicked out of the Army after six weeks at Fort Benning, Ga., in 2003 because of his "entry level performance and conduct."(Emphasis mine.)
A complaint unsealed Friday in U.S. District Court in Seattle charged him with one count of using or possessing a forged or altered military discharge certificate, and one count of making false statements in seeking benefits from the Veterans Administration.
I'm betting that Macbeth will come out of this situation in relatively good shape, simply because no sane person who knew that he had no real record of service would so blatantly lie to the VA, which can easily confirm or dispute any putative record. Jesse will come off as a nut and will be treated accordingly.
But there are a lot of presumably not-crazy persons out there (okay, I'm being generous here) who--like Macbeth--don't know how seriously all of the services take attention to detail--from dress and appearance to paperwork. Failure to recognize this feature of the US military was likely a part of what got Macbeth the boot from Army initial training.
Any GI could see that both the Macbeth and the Bush-AWOL stories were bogus through mere knowledge--and not just knowledge of the formats of military forms and written communication, but having that knowledge reinforced over and over again throughout their entire careers.
This is what made both stories so infuriating to those of us who have actually served. It spoke not only of the perpetrators' ignorance, but of the disdain which they and all too many others hold for GIs, protestations of "supporting" the troops notwithstanding.
Denny, the Grouchy Old Cripple, had a Photoshop up last week which summed put the above mindset pretty succinctly.
It's infuriating when your opponents think that you're as stupid as they are.
(Thanks to Rosemary)
And you knew that I'd be right on top of it.
Derek Jackson, a seventh grader at Bailey Middle School in Austin, TX was suspended from school because his barber had cut his hair too short!
Derek's mother, Amanda, says she met with Bailey Middle School Principal Dr. Julia Fletcher, and Dr. Fletcher told her that the issue was "not worth the fight".According to the article, Derek's hairstyle violated the school's dress code and was a "distraction."
Leaders of Austin's NAACP are convinced the suspension of Derek Jackson is racially motivated. [The Jacksons are black.] Nelson Linder with the NAACP says there's no other reason he can think of why a 7th grader would get in-school suspension for having hair that's too short.
The only reason that I can think of for this rule would be the implications of a white bald-headed boy--that such a kid might be a junior skin-head. However, unless young Derek were a part of some skin-head diversity program, the likelihood that he is a junior-flip skin-head seems low.
And even if Derek were white what would be the big deal? Boys and men traditionally wear their hair short and, along with that, barbers make mistakes--as I well know--sometimes taking a bigger chunk out than intended and having to cut the rest down for symmetry's sake. On top of that, black boys and men--and not a few of their white counterparts--have been cutting their hair down to zero for a very long time with no political or social implications located therein; for the most part, looking great, and in the case of the adult men, very professional. Hasn't this woman ever heard of Yul Brenner (or Cobb for that matter)?
So why is having a bald head against this school's dress again? (I'm betting that if Derek had a big fluffy Afro or cornrows or locks, the principal wouldn't have uttered a peep.)
To me, this sounds like a "boy" issue, rather than a racial one. Lately, boy children can't catch a break--for acting like boys, or, as it appears in this case, for being groomed like one. However, the case is racial in this manner, albeit accidentally: the drop-out rate for black boys is alarmingly high. One should think that the principal of this school would not want provide one of the proverbial camel's straws for at least one black male child which might lead to that child becoming a small part of that statistic--especially for such a ridiculous matter.
Dr. Fletcher certainly has infinitely more important matters to attend to.
(Thanks to Crunk & Disorderly)
The executive and legislative branches of the US government are celebrating their bipartisan efforts to solve the illegal alien conundrum.
Under the deal, undocumented workers who crossed into the country before Jan. 1 would be offered a temporary-residency permit while they await a new "Z Visa" that would allow them to live and work lawfully here. The head of an illegal-immigrant household would have eight years to return to his or her home country to apply for permanent legal residence for members of the household, but each Z Visa itself would be renewable indefinitely, as long as the holder passes a criminal background check, remains fully employed and pays a $5,000 fine, plus a paperwork-processing fee.
A separate, temporary-worker program would be established for 400,000 migrants a year. Each temporary work visa would be good for two years and could be renewed up to three times, as long as the worker leaves the country for a year between renewals.
To satisfy Republicans, those provisions would come in force only after the federal government implements tough new border controls and a crackdown on employers that hire illegal immigrants. Republicans are demanding 18,000 new Border Patrol agents, 370 miles of additional border fencing and an effective, electronic employee-verification system for the workplace.A question has been sitting in the back of my mind since it became apparent that the majority of national politicians—Democrats and Republicans--were inclined not to crack down hard on illegal immigrants nor follow through on meaningful methods to prevent further large scale illegal immigration via both borders.
What is (are) the long-term goal(s) with regard to going easy on illegal immigration?
Sure, this latest proposition contains the hard-core verbiage, existing “to satisfy Republicans,” but, as we know, words without consequent action mean nothing. If they did, our law makers and enforcers would merely have to abide by existing immigration law in remedying the situation.
Let’s just say that I believe our policy-makers when they talk about implementing the positive solutions—such as they are—to the illegal immigration question, but I do not believe that they will implement the harsher measures. And, Politicians, please! If you were an “undocumented worker” already making enough to support you family—and the one back in the old country—would you pay $5000 and go back home, risking not being able to come back? I wouldn’t.
So what is their point? Is their some long-term strategy when it comes to allowing Mexicans (and Canadians) to simply come on over? I’d be interested in reading hypotheses, even tin-foil hated ones.
Since 9/11, many observers feared that certain types of individuals not originally from Mexico and Canada were taking advantage of the laxity of the US-Mexico and the US-Canada border enforcement—individuals who were not simply looking for a better life, but those who were looking to make life worse for others: gang-members, drug-dealers and, of course, terrorists. It was already too late. The Fort Dix plot featured decidedly non-Mexican illegal immigrants who were brought over the Mexican border in the 1980s as small children and, in addition, some were arrested dozens of times for traffic violations as adults. However, following the traffic arrests, local authorities did not check any of the arrestees’ immigration status since “they operated in so-called 'sanctuary cities,' where law enforcement does not routinely tell the Homeland Security Department about illegal immigrants in their towns…” Now, of course, the future isn’t always accurately predicted and “terror suspect” or even “reckless driver” need not have been in the future description of these men. Nor I am I saying that the original intent of their parents wasn’t identical to that of most immigrants in our midst, illegal or not: to immigrate to US in order to make for themselves betters lives than was possible in their countries of origin.
But their parents took advantage of a loophole that has long existed in our border enforcement policies well before national security was on the radar of most citizens/policy-makers. Well, national security is on our radar now (at least that of many private citizens) and, unless harder solutions exist in fact rather than merely on paper, it won’t get any better.
One more thing to consider as far as Mexicans go who have illegally immigrated here for economic and existential reasons: do any of our policy-makers consider why so many Mexicans would rather brave the desert conditions of southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to get here rather than live and work in the country of their birth and upbringing? I’m guessing that if they do consider conditions for poorer Mexican citizens, the policy-makers figure that nothing can be done about it.
I'm not an advocate of forcibly deporting the roughly 12 million illegal immigrants who are here right now--something which would be a human and logistical nightmare. But, you know what? As long as conditions in Mexico itself exist, coupled with lax de facto border enforcement policies, the flood of Mexican illegal immigrants will continue to flow at its regular rate and we'll again be asking ourselves what to do about it in the not-so distant future.
Assuming that not-Mexican terrorists who are more tactically intelligent than the Fort Dix Six don't come along for the ride, that is.
Again, what’s the end game?
UPDATE: Be prepared for Sticker Shock. From Heritage Foundation via The Corner:
Some 50 to 60 percent of illegal immigrants lack a high school degree. Granting amnesty or conditional amnesty to illegal immigrants would, overtime, increase their use of means-tested welfare, Social Security and Medicare. Fiscal costs would go up significantly in the short term but would go up dramatically after the amnesty recipient reached retirement. Based on my current research, I estimate that if all the current adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. were granted amnesty the net retirement costs to government (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.5 trillion.(Emphasis mine.)
(Thanks to Michelle Malkin)
Right on cue comes noted atheist Christopher Hitchens' "tribute" to Jerry Falwell. Hitchens, who seems to take a perverse delight in trashing notable figures upon their deaths, especially those who were publicly religious, predictably excoriates Falwell for his acknowledged sins but in the midst of the rant, goes off on a tangent about certain anti-Semites who call themselves Christians. At first that seemed odd in a Falwell obit, since the reverend was a great supporter of Israel.
But it isn't clergymen who are Hitchens' enemy, per se; they're merely useful tools for the venting of Hitchens' ire (some being more useful than others). It's religion itself, especially Christianity--whether interpreted properly or not--to which Hitchens sets himself up as adversary.
At the end of the piece, Hitchens says that "[i]t's a shame that there is no hell for Falwell to go to..." That statement is refreshingly unhypocritical, since all too many atheists pretend to believe in Hell only when someone they hate passes on. The rest of the sentence reads as follows:
and it's extraordinary that not even such a scandalous career is enough to shake our dumb addiction to the "faith-based."What Hitchens forgets about the only faith-based religion he could be talking about--assuming he ever knew it--is that if faith were not the sole criterion to get into Heaven, then no one could go since no one is capable of not doing wrong whether accidentally or willfully.
Perhaps Hitchens does take this into account but, as many do, finds it easier to believe that there's nothing else but the physical world. Understandable. However, judging from his many tirades against religious persons, especially faith-based Christians, I suspect that Hitchens does believe in the existence of God. And hates His guts.
The quite Right(-winged) reverend dies at 73.
LYNCHBURG, Va. - The Rev. Jerry Falwell, the television evangelist who founded the Moral Majority and used it to mold the religious right into a political force, died Tuesday shortly after being found unconscious in his office at Liberty University. He was 73.The reverend was always a kook, but his heart, centered on Jesus Christ, was in the right place--most of time.
Ron Godwin, the university's executive vice president, said Falwell was found unresponsive late Tuesday morning and taken to Lynchburg General Hospital, where he was pronounced dead about an hour later.
The occasions in which it wasn't, however, were glaring.
I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say "you helped [9/11 to] happen."Leaving aside the offensive nature of the statement, what the reverend forgot was the lesson of Job. Bad things happen to the just and unjust alike--not necessarily because of action or inaction, but because this world belongs to the Accuser.
Rev. Falwell erred--but it's what we humans do. Now he gets to RIP and that's what I wish for his soul.
(Thanks to Hot Air)
A couple of days back, a Free Republic poster named 'coffee260' repeated something he had heard on the XM Radio broadcast of Quinn & Rose: that DNC Chairman Howard Dean had allegedly
called Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius [D] early, around 5 am, one morning after the tornado had destroyed the town of Greensburg, Kansas and discussed with her what to say about the tornado and how to blame the war in Iraq and the Bush administration on a slow response to the aftermath...[SNIP]and that
she confessed to [Senator Sam Brownback, R] that she had been instructed by her party leadership, (more specifically, Howard Dean) on how to politicize the tornado's destruction of Greensburg and attack the White House and the Iraq war for a seemingly slow response. She reassured the Senator that her allegations didn't blame him or Pat Roberts, also a Kansas Senator, for the lack of immediate response.Because of this post, Free Republic (and XM Radio) have each received a cease-and-desist letter from the DNC's legal representation stating that
The statements quoted above are false and defamatory, are libelous and slanderous, and clearly threaten to interfere with the DNC's operations and ability to solicit support and raise funds by prejudicing the organization in the the eyes of Democratic Party supporters and the public. For these reasons, we demand that FreeRepublic.com (i) immediately cease and desist from further dissemination of the above-quoted statements or any statements similar in substance and (ii) immediately post a retraction of these statements in a location on its web page at least as prominent as that on which the original story appeared.
Please let us know by noon tomorrow (May 11, 2007) whether you intend to comply with these requests.Well. Does the DNC have a case? Powerline's Scott Johnson says 'no' and refers to the author of the letter, DNC' attorney Joseph Sandler as "a thug representing a bunch of reprobates and bullies" to boot, because
Under the First Amendment, as construed by the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan, citizens are protected from defamation claim by public figures so long as the statements in issue are lacking in "actual malice," i.e, knowledge of their falsehood or reckless disregard to whether they are false or not.As this situation becomes known, repeated and linked to, one wonders whether the DNC legal assistants will be in overdrive as it hands out cease-and-desist letters all around the blogosphere (at least to the conservative side).
I'm not a legal sort, but if I were a mover/shaker in the DNC, I'd fire this guy Sandler, as this move is bound to backfire on the organization which he represents. It's a shot in the foot, for sure and likely one borne of the enmity created by the exposure of the bogus Bush AWOL gambit which began its destruction when Free Republic denizens first put a magnifying glass to it.
Mindless anger makes one less likely to think things through, but, to paraphase whoever, when your ideological opponent shoots himself in the proverbial foot, simply stand back.
(Thanks to Instatpundit)
HELP GREENSBURG REBUILD: Green for Greensburg via the United Way
[For] defamation and discrimination by a former employee - claiming among other things that Dean discriminates against gays and violated the “D.C. Human Rights Act”
Technorati Tags: defamation, discrimination, DNC, Free Republic, Greensburg, Howard Dean, Human Rights Act, Joseph Sandler, Justin Levine, Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius, legal, Patterico, Power Line, Quinn & Rose, Sam Brownback, tornado, XM Radio
What do you do when you and another person--a person you love--have a difference of opinion (to put it mildly) and he/she won't admit his/her faults that cause the difference even when you're willing to admit yours? Constraints: you can't break off the relationship because you've made a commitment either to yourself, a Higher Power or both.
How do you combat pride in a constructive manner?
Mort Kondrake looks ahead to a prospective future; an ugly one.
The 80 percent alternative [to President Bush’s troop surge gambit] involves accepting rule by Shiites and Kurds, allowing them to violently suppress Sunni resistance and making sure that Shiites friendly to the United States emerge victorious.
No one has publicly advocated this Plan B, and I know of only one Member of Congress who backs it - and he wants to stay anonymous. But he argues persuasively that it's the best alternative available if Bush's surge fails. Winning will be dirty because it will allow the Shiite-dominated Iraqi military and some Shiite militias to decimate the Sunni insurgency. There likely will be ethnic cleansing, atrocities against civilians and massive refugee flows.
On the other hand, as Bush's critics point out, bloody civil war is the reality in Iraq right now. U.S. troops are standing in the middle of it and so far cannot stop either Shiites from killing Sunnis or Sunnis from killing Shiites.
Winning dirty would involve taking sides in the civil war - backing the Shiite-dominated elected government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and ensuring that he and his allies prevail over both the Sunni insurgency and his Shiite adversary Muqtada al-Sadr, who's now Iran's candidate to rule Iraq. [SNIP]
Prudence calls for preparation of a Plan B. The withdrawal policy advocated by most Democrats virtually guarantees catastrophic ethnic cleansing - but without any guarantee that a government friendly to the United States would emerge. Almost certainly, Shiites will dominate Iraq because they outnumber Sunnis three to one. But the United States would get no credit for helping the Shiites win. In fact, America's credibility would suffer because it abandoned its mission. And, there is no guarantee that al-Sadr - currently residing in Iran and resting his militias - would not emerge as the victor in a power struggle with al-Maliki's Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.Asks Allahpundit:
[I]n what sense does Kondracke think “American credibility” would be served by letting Sadr put the Sunnis to the sword? We’d be hearing about it from the left and the Islamists for the next thousand years. Al Qaeda would make it a centerpiece of their recruiting strategy. Even Iran, the ostensible beneficiaries, would demagogue the hell out of it with crocodile tears about their “Sunni brothers” whom the Sadrists had no choice but to fight after the U.S. goaded them into it.Answer: he doesn't. Kondracke:
In fact, America's credibility would suffer because it abandoned its mission.Kondrake is merely exercising the prognostication skills about which I discussed in the previous post. The thing about sober preditions, however, is this: some of them are not happy ones, to be perfectly euphemistic about it.
Is there an alternative? Let’s hope so, but, as most commentators have said, it’s up to the Iraqis to understand that the Americans are trying to create the climate which doesn’t lead to ethnic cleansing and to step up and do their part.
(Thanks to Instapundit)
I wasn't surprised when I saw Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, appear on Al Jazeera to announce America's defeat last week, not long after U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did. Zawahiri claims Al Qaeda has won, and Reid claims America has lost.
But from here in Baghdad, I see only a war that's still raging - with no victory in sight for Al Qaeda or any other entity. In fact, I see Al Qaeda on the ropes, losing support among my fellow Iraqis. [SNIP]
It is up to us to show tyrants and murderers like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah, Syria's Bashar Assad, and their would-be imitators who seek to control Iraq's people and wealth that we, the people, are not their possessions. They can't take out our humanity and they can't force us to back down.
The world should ask them to leave our land before asking the soldiers of freedom to do so. [SNIP]
And so, my friends, I will call for fighting this war just as powerfully as the bad guys do - because I must show them that I'm stronger than they are. The people of America need to understand this: the enemies of a stable Iraq are America's enemies, and they simply do not understand the language of civilization and reason.
They understand only power.Reading Mohammed's plea, I am reminded of Carroll Quigley’s theory about cultures: that successful ones are future-oriented. He said a heck of a lot of other non-PC things in his 1300-page tome, Tragedy & Hope (after all, it was published in 1966) but that particular observation stands out in my mind, especially in relation to the “beef” that Islamists have had with the West since long before the onset of the Iraq War. Mohammed and others like him are looking to the future—not only of their country, but of their entire culture which encompasses nationality, ethnicity and religion. What I’m wondering is whether these forward thinking persons can overcome those among them who want to settle the old cultural scores or want to opt for an alternate “future”: the one in which sending enough True Believers to Allah and consigning enough “Infidels” and “Apostates” to “Perdition” will cause the remnant of the latter two to submit to the will of the former.
And I can’t simply say that the dearth of the forward thinking mindset is one that is unique to Arab Muslim cultures. We need only look around us to see that the “right-now” mentality is all too prevalent in the West—not just among its citizens but in a good portion of the various governments of the West.
Was the decision to topple Saddam Hussein a valid one, made not just taking all available information into account, but fusing such information together to see how future events might play themselves out? It’s a valid question to ask and to keep asking up to a point. But if the answer turns out to be ‘no,’ due to an insufficient projection of possible future events, why should any of us make the same mistake over again?
Many interested observers, such as Mohammed and other peace-loving Iraqis, Arabs and Muslims, along with those in the West who aren’t willing to make a pre-emptive bug-out from Iraq due to their projections of the future: a future containing the speculation that Islamists will overrun the abandoned Iraq and, having had their speculations about the West confirmed—that we’re a weak-willed spineless lot who will abandon our commitments once the going gets too tough—will bring the fight to the West’s shores in earnest. Why would the many interested observers believe this? Because it has already happened many times before 9/11, many times since and several unsuccessful attempts to actually do so have been foiled. (and don’t get me started on how that crew got here).
See, it isn’t enough just to tick off the facts or go over the mistakes of the past or lament the situation of the present; one, or rather, all of us have to figure out how past, present and future fit together using all of the information we have and then figure out what to do next.
To those who were against the Iraq intervention in the first place or have come to the conclusion that it was a bad idea and have changed their minds, I, for one, accept your conclusions in good faith. But if you think that the decision to intervene in Iraq was made without adequately predicting what might happen in the future, I beseech you: don’t make the exact same mistake.
(Thanks to Michelle Malkin)
Does God exist or not? Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens make their cases for and against, respectively.
I have two questions which are unrelated to the first, however:
1. Why is Al Sharpton being held up as an "authority on Christianity?
2. Why is anyone surprised that something offensive came out of Sharpton's mouth?
As for the one Mormon running for [presidential] office [Mitt Romney], those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don't worry about that, that's a temporary situation.(Emphasis mine.)
The next time someone white asks me what's wrong with "my" "leaders" I will point out that it is institutions such as Slate which are draping the mantle of leadership over Shapton's shoulders and not any organization known to be specifically a "black" one.
Even so, Sharpton outdid Hitchens simply in debate skills and by keeping a cooler head. That alone should be proof enough that God exists.
(Thanks to Hot Air)
Since the number of Mexicans who are migrating to the U.S. is higher than that of those who are dying, apparently, a good portion of Mexicans who have any valuable work skills have voted with their feet. Here's what those who remain are up to.
MEXICO CITY — More than 18,000 people stripped down and bared it all in Mexico City's vast main square Sunday for U.S. photographer Spencer Tunick's biggest nude shoot yet.
Hi there; remember me? I've actually had my new system up and running for a couple of days, but had other priorities.
I haven't had too much to say about the slate of candidates--both Democrat and Republican--who are running for president in 2008, but I read something today--from last month--allegedly said by one of them; something which made my nappy hair straighten spontaneously.
During a Town Hall Meeting in Hampton, NH, Senator Hillary Clinton responded to a less-than-polite questioner about the former's role in authorizing Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Clinton said she had been briefed on the report, and the woman screamed back, "Did you read it?!" Notably uncomfortable, the Senator repeated that she had been briefed. [SNIP]
Clinton also said she believed she was giving the President the authority to send U.N. inspectors to Iraq.(Emphasis mine.)
Here's the bill in question, ambiguously titled Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq. There are two versions of the bill, but both have the same title and the opening line is likewise identical:
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.Additionally, here is the first paragraph of the senator's floor speech on the prior related bill, retrieved from her own site:
Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.So I have a question; it's of the multiple-choice variety. Is the senator:
c. calculating that most observers are stupid? or
d. b. and c.?
The senate floor speech certainly rules out a., though if a. were true, the thought that such a moron could be president--one who voted for troop combat deployment when she thought she was voting for "authorization" to deploy UN inspectors--is hair-straightening in and of itself. But, as you can guess, I'm going with d.
Now, of course, I realize that our legislators don't necessarily read every single piece of legislation that comes up for a vote. That's what House/Senate staff members are for. But the AUMF of 2002 wasn't some innocuous senate snoozer of a bill composed in bureaucrat-ese. It was a clear-cut consent to send US troops into battle. Simply, the senator is calculating that many citizens who may be inclined to put her in the Oval Office don't know that and that such people also aren't aware that the US government has no control over the UN.
If the senator believes that she made a mistake when she voted to authorize OIF, why can't she just say it? Here's why: because of the questions and public observations that will result from such an admission. From such, the public will be reminded that she, those senators and representatives who voted "yea" on S.J.RES.46 of the 107th Congress, President Bush and, last but not least, the senator's own husband were all relying on the same intelligence reports of Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities when coming to conclusions and making decisions regarding Hussein's Iraq. (Was the senator paying attention to something other than her husband's infidelities during the vaunted co-presidency? Apparently not.)
Would such an admission put Senator Clinton in the same opinion-dog house where President Bush has resided for some time now--the one designated for those who rely on faulty intelligence and are called liars because of it? Probably not. That singular dungeon seems to be reserved for Republicans in general and the president in particular, but Senator Clinton probably isn't willing to take that chance. Also there's an important and related reason for the senator to make such a blatantly ridiculous assertion about senate "authorization" for deployment of UN inspectors into Iraq: Senator Obama.
The "never was for it; but she was" Senator Obama, that is. The same guy who is cutting into the black and anti-war voting blocks which Senator Clinton thought belonged to her.
She's scared, but she did not do herself any favors in that town hall meeting. On the contrary, she merely confirmed something that her detractors have asserted about her and Former President Clinton for some time now: that the two will brazenly lie about nearly anything to gain and/or retain power.
(Thanks to Clarice Feldman)